[News] Post Office Scandal -

[PILTDOWN MAN]

True. Some people were so horrified at shortfalls, they used their savings and relatives' savings to clear them. Basically they were robbed.

The sums involved vary so much and for me this is the issue. Some it was 10's of thousands other maybe only a few thousand, how they work out what each gets is important. It should reflect not just the financial but very much the mental/physical impact. It really is mind-blowing.

 

[Bozza]

The buck does need to stop somewhere. There's an awful lot of 'I'm not technical'/I'm too technical'/'I was only following orders'. But somebody had the big picture

Of course it does - no-one of right mind would suggest otherwise.

But right-minded people also want the investigation to be thorough and find those who were aware of the problem and either did nothing about it or tried to hide the problem and allow prosecutions to continue. We don't need further innocent people to suffer in haste to just blame someone.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Of course it does - no-one of right mind would suggest otherwise.

But right-minded people also want the investigation to be thorough and find those who were aware of the problem and either did nothing about it or tried to hide the problem and allow prosecutions to continue. We don't need further innocent people to suffer in haste to just blame someone.

Totally agree. That's why I said that somebody knew the big picture. And they're the ones that need holding to account

 

[Brian Fantana]

Of course it does - no-one of right mind would suggest otherwise.

But right-minded people also want the investigation to be thorough and find those who were aware of the problem and either did nothing about it or tried to hide the problem and allow prosecutions to continue. We don't need further innocent people to suffer in haste to just blame someone.

I fully agree with you.

I have to tread slightly carefully here as I work for Royal Mail (although obviously we're no longer part of the same group as Post Office). Within Royal Mail, there is a high proportion of people who have worked for the business for decades (and therefore were around when this was all unfolding). Even when the two companies were part of the same group, my understanding is that there was a large degree of autonomy between the two.

With that caveat in place, I can give my own experience that there are colleagues I work with today who were around at RM all those years ago, but had no direct experience of the Horizon project, and they're all totally horrified (and angry) with what transpired. I'm totally convinced based on the level of trust I have for people I work with who were around in the group at the time (and extrapolating that there would have been other people of similar standing working in the PO teams) that there MUST have been people at a medium level of management who were raising their hands to flag something being wrong.

I sincerely, sincerely hope that we can get to the truth because whilst it is amazingly important for those postmasters and postmistresses to be exonerated and compensated fairly, it is also very important that people who did their jobs at the time, and potentially flagged concerns which were either ignored or silenced, are not unnecessarily dragged into this.

 

[Seagull58]

I watched the drama over the last couple of nights .

I’m sure I’m missing something but can anyone explain this for me;

I understand the Horizon software concluded that they were X number of pounds in deficit. And this happened daily , or whenever they submit their accounts .

But how come the subpostmasters didn’t also do a physical stock take and thus prove that Horizon was incorrect?

Surely a hand-count of stock sold against the money in their till would have quickly proven the machine was at fault?

If stock sold / services provided married up with money taken. Where’s the issue?

Is it that simple?

They did physical stock checks on a daily basis to reconcile the books. That's how they knew Horizon was wrong and that's why Alan Bates refused to sign off on the accounts and had his post office shutdown. That's also why Jo was originally charged with fraud (physical stock plus cash on hand didn't match Horizon figures) and then pled guilty to false accounting when she changed figures to make the books balance.

 

[Seagull58]

I don't understand why from a compensation perspective they are differentiating between those convicted and those not. Surely everyone involved has suffered damages above and beyond that of the money PO forced them to pay back.

Bates is fighting for ALL those affected to be compensated, not just those convicted. He has been contacted by another 50 or so since the program aired. He represented more than 500 in the legal case but there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

 

[Nobby]

You'll see above that I'm not making any suggestion about any or all of the PO investigators.

I'm merely saying that with the level of scrutiny on this now, and the desire to put things right, care has to be taken to not cast the truly innocent as culpable. Because doing that is what got us here in the first place.

It's about the culture of the organisation I think.

Even if the "Investigators" had suspected something was up, it certainly wouldn't have been in their personal interests to rock any boats.

I worked for an ex Nationalised industry for a while in the 80's.
At any meeting, if the most senior guy put forward a plan, then everyone else nodded. It happened all the time. There was never any challenge to anything.
Some of these people at the PO would have been there for their whole career. Why would they risk a good pension and a steady salary by speaking out?

The only incentive to change the culture would have been at Board level.

There were a number of CEO's, Finance Directors, IT Directors who would all have been in the know to some extent, throughout this whole scandal.
But everyone at that level is driven by bonuses and share options - again why rock the boat?

What the hell were the Non Exec's doing through all this?
Just earning a bit on the side from their main incomes rather than question what the hell was going on.

I'm not sure that anyone will be held accountable for any of this.
It all comes down to systems and processes with no-one ever having the guts to stand up and be counted.

Everyone will have a get out.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It's about the culture of the organisation I think.

Even if the "Investigators" had suspected something was up, it certainly wouldn't have been in their personal interests to rock any boats.

I worked for an ex Nationalised industry for a while in the 80's.
At any meeting, if the most senior guy put forward a plan, then everyone else nodded. It happened all the time. There was never any challenge to anything.
Some of these people at the PO would have been there for their whole career. Why would they risk a good pension and a steady salary by speaking out?

The only incentive to change the culture would have been at Board level.

There were a number of CEO's, Finance Directors, IT Directors who would all have been in the know to some extent, throughout this whole scandal.
But everyone at that level is driven by bonuses and share options - again why rock the boat?

What the hell were the Non Exec's doing through all this?
Just earning a bit on the side from their main incomes rather than question what the hell was going on.

I'm not sure that anyone will be held accountable for any of this.
It all comes down to systems and processes with no-one ever having the guts to stand up and be counted.

Everyone will have a get out.

I do hope they don't get away with the usual 'institutional failure' cop-out

 

[clapham_gull]

True. Some people were so horrified at shortfalls, they used their savings and relatives' savings to clear them. Basically they were robbed.

And because the disfunction of the Post Office, the branch managers weren't robbed....

The Post Office was "robbed".

..of virtual money made up by the Horizon system that didn't exist.

And That's the thing I haven't been able to find an answer for. Why didn't the Post Office organisation notice that ?

 

[Talby]

I fully agree with you.

I have to tread slightly carefully here as I work for Royal Mail (although obviously we're no longer part of the same group as Post Office). Within Royal Mail, there is a high proportion of people who have worked for the business for decades (and therefore were around when this was all unfolding). Even when the two companies were part of the same group, my understanding is that there was a large degree of autonomy between the two.

With that caveat in place, I can give my own experience that there are colleagues I work with today who were around at RM all those years ago, but had no direct experience of the Horizon project, and they're all totally horrified (and angry) with what transpired. I'm totally convinced based on the level of trust I have for people I work with who were around in the group at the time (and extrapolating that there would have been other people of similar standing working in the PO teams) that there MUST have been people at a medium level of management who were raising their hands to flag something being wrong.

I sincerely, sincerely hope that we can get to the truth because whilst it is amazingly important for those postmasters and postmistresses to be exonerated and compensated fairly, it is also very important that people who did their jobs at the time, and potentially flagged concerns which were either ignored or silenced, are not unnecessarily dragged into this.

Completely agree. Given the length of time the Inquiry has been going and the fact that we knew a TV drama was being made, it is very surprising that no whistleblowing has been done. I can’t but help find that troubling - if I was being pulled into something so seriously f***ed up I’d have made sure I kept evidence of the concerns I raised.

 

[Triggaaar]

I also am uncomfortable about using legisaltion to overturn the decisions of the Courts.

How difficult could it be to find a few Appeal Court judges to work a full day and hear all the appeals? The clerk announces the case. The CPS offers no evidence. The judge quashes the conviction. I reckon each judge could get through 20 an hour.

My concern is that these Tory bastards are setting a precedent to over-rule the decisions of Courts in the future. It's a dangerous step and I don't like it at all.

You're right to question it, but getting an appeal judge to quash 20 cases an hour sounds like a similar problem.

They could have a proper court hearing which would presumably find that the existing convictions are unsafe due to an issue common to all cases. That's a good starting point to getting them quashed en-masse.

 

[Bozza]

Completely agree. Given the length of time the Inquiry has been going and the fact that we knew a TV drama was being made, it is very surprising that no whistleblowing has been done.

There has been some of sorts.

I haven't seen it, but I understand the old Panorama documentary was aired last night, and included a Fujitsu developer who whistle-blew on the ability for Fujitsu tech/support staff to remotely access individual post office systems, and make unauditable data updates. This was a direct contradiction of what the Post Office had previously stated - they had said that remote access was not possible.

 

[Seagull58]

I fully agree with you.

I have to tread slightly carefully here as I work for Royal Mail (although obviously we're no longer part of the same group as Post Office). Within Royal Mail, there is a high proportion of people who have worked for the business for decades (and therefore were around when this was all unfolding). Even when the two companies were part of the same group, my understanding is that there was a large degree of autonomy between the two.

With that caveat in place, I can give my own experience that there are colleagues I work with today who were around at RM all those years ago, but had no direct experience of the Horizon project, and they're all totally horrified (and angry) with what transpired. I'm totally convinced based on the level of trust I have for people I work with who were around in the group at the time (and extrapolating that there would have been other people of similar standing working in the PO teams) that there MUST have been people at a medium level of management who were raising their hands to flag something being wrong.

I sincerely, sincerely hope that we can get to the truth because whilst it is amazingly important for those postmasters and postmistresses to be exonerated and compensated fairly, it is also very important that people who did their jobs at the time, and potentially flagged concerns which were either ignored or silenced, are not unnecessarily dragged into this.

Absolutely. For example the workers in the "secret" office remotely accessing subpostmasters' systems to change data were simply doing a job as instructed. The managers/executives who authorised the remote access operation and denied it existed, including committing perjury, are the culpable ones. Similarly, although this is a greyer area, the call centre staff who were telling the subpostmasters that they were making errors and that each was "the only one". Yes, they knew that was incorrect but, if they were instructed to say so via a script, they should not be liable for any legal repercussions It's disappointing that only one of them ever put his head above the parapet though. I would have hoped there would be several call centre operators and several remote access operators spilling the beans by now.

 

[Talby]

There has been some of sorts.

I haven't seen it, but I understand the old Panorama documentary was aired last night, and included a Fujitsu developer who whistle-blew on the ability for Fujitsu tech/support staff to remotely access individual post office systems, and make unauditable data updates. This was a direct contradiction of what the Post Office had previously stated - they had said that remote access was not possible.

Yeah, one of two. But this has been rattling on for a long time. Alan Bates wasn’t going to give it up, as soon as those convictions were quashed then the writing was on the wall.

 

[Seagull58]

There has been some of sorts.

I haven't seen it, but I understand the old Panorama documentary was aired last night, and included a Fujitsu developer who whistle-blew on the ability for Fujitsu tech/support staff to remotely access individual post office systems, and make unauditable data updates. This was a direct contradiction of what the Post Office had previously stated - they had said that remote access was not possible.

Presumably this is the guy in the drama who eventually appeared as a witness in the court case and blew the Post Office's case to pieces. Disappointing no others have come forward.

 

[Triggaaar]

I watched the drama over the last couple of nights .

I’m sure I’m missing something but can anyone explain this for me;

I understand the Horizon software concluded that they were X number of pounds in deficit. And this happened daily , or whenever they submit their accounts .

But how come the subpostmasters didn’t also do a physical stock take and thus prove that Horizon was incorrect?

Surely a hand-count of stock sold against the money in their till would have quickly proven the machine was at fault?

If stock sold / services provided married up with money taken. Where’s the issue?

Is it that simple?

The software is never wrong, it's in use everywhere and you are the only one with this problem. Maybe you've had staff sell stock for cash and its been pocketed. We don't know how you have taken the money, but you have taken it and we've got 15 lawyers here to confuse the courts enough to put you in prison. We've also got IT to confirm the software is working correctly. He may or may not get a lovely bonus.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Absolutely. For example the workers in the "secret" office remotely accessing subpostmasters' systems to change data were simply doing a job as instructed. The managers/executives who authorised the remote access operation and denied it existed, including committing perjury, are the culpable ones. Similarly, although this is a greyer area, the call centre staff who were telling the subpostmasters that they were making errors and that each was "the only one". Yes, they k ew that was incorrect but, if they were instructed to say so via a script, they should not be liable for any legal repercussions It's disappointing that only one of them ever put his head above the parapet though. I would have hoped there would be several call centre operators and several remote access operators spilling the beans by now.

I do wonder whether it comes down to there being only a relatively small number of people who knew the whole picture, and the scale of what was happening. I can only speak from my experience of working at RM obviously, but the organisation is an absolute beast and is fairly siloed in certain areas (not in a sinister way, more just sometimes teams not communicating with other teams as effectively as possible), so I'm wondering whether the same could/can be said of PO. It's not me defending the actions of anyone clearly, but more wondering whether a lot of people indirectly involved in some way didn't have a full enough picture to really twig what was happening.

As I say, let's hope we get the full truth (or as close as we can to that).

 

[KZNSeagull]

I do hope they don't get away with the usual 'institutional failure' cop-out

Oh it can't surely? It is obvious that someone, somewhere made the decision to carry on with the system when it was full of bugs. Plus someone okayed the functionality that allowed Fujitsu employees to fiddle with live accounts.
On that last point, I thought it was the law that there was an audit trail of all transactions on a financial system? I once found some funny code (calls to modules for which we did not have the source code) where I was working and asked what it was and was told that there was a secure 'box' at the data centre in a locked cage where every online transaction was registered. Maybe it wasn't the law, maybe it was to track dodgy employees rather!

 

[Seagull58]

It's about the culture of the organisation I think.

Even if the "Investigators" had suspected something was up, it certainly wouldn't have been in their personal interests to rock any boats.

I worked for an ex Nationalised industry for a while in the 80's.
At any meeting, if the most senior guy put forward a plan, then everyone else nodded. It happened all the time. There was never any challenge to anything.
Some of these people at the PO would have been there for their whole career. Why would they risk a good pension and a steady salary by speaking out?

The only incentive to change the culture would have been at Board level.

There were a number of CEO's, Finance Directors, IT Directors who would all have been in the know to some extent, throughout this whole scandal.
But everyone at that level is driven by bonuses and share options - again why rock the boat?

What the hell were the Non Exec's doing through all this?
Just earning a bit on the side from their main incomes rather than question what the hell was going on.

I'm not sure that anyone will be held accountable for any of this.
It all comes down to systems and processes with no-one ever having the guts to stand up and be counted.

Everyone will have a get out.

Somebody authorised the remote access operation to correct data errors. Somebody told the lawyers remote access was not possible. Somebody instructed the call centre operators to tell callers that each was the only one having problems. Those people should be identifiable and they are guilty, as are their bosses who signed off on those actions. There are also people who have personally committed perjury in court. The Met is on the case, which may not inspire confidence but will, hopefully, lead to criminal convictions.

 

[Brian Fantana]

And because the disfunction of the Post Office, the branch managers weren't robbed....

The Post Office was "robbed".

..of virtual money made up by the Horizon system that didn't exist.

And That's the thing I haven't been able to find an answer for. Why didn't the Post Office organisation notice that ?

I have wondered the same thing. Surely the overall PO accounts would have shown that?